Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › ATI Drivers and Overclocking Software › REQUEST: 14.1 frame pacing benchmarks on Llano,Trinity,Richland
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

REQUEST: 14.1 frame pacing benchmarks on Llano,Trinity,Richland

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I have scoured the internet for benchmarks with the recent frame pacing fixes on any of the older platforms, all benchmarks are or appear to be exclusively for kaveri chips only. While it's nice to see the latest and greatest hardware being tested it also gets a little annoying, I can't seem to find any information on the actual improvements (if any) the recent frame pacing improvements add to the older platforms as Llano, Trinity and Richland didn't include GCN enabled GPU's.


So my request is if someone has the time and has a Llano, Trinity , Richland based system with dual graphics if they could install the latest beta drivers and run some benchmarks and let me know if there was any improvements in frame rates and actual game play. The only benchmarks I can find for older platforms are using much older drivers which don't include the frame pacing fixes and I want to know if AMD is targeting only the latest and greatest hardware with these fixes or if they have actually improved the older systems and delivered on the original promises of dual graphics.
post #2 of 25
I thought these fixes didn't make it into the beta driver - or was that something else? tongue.gif
post #3 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaju123 View Post

I thought these fixes didn't make it into the beta driver - or was that something else? tongue.gif


They definitely are in the most recent beta release, I've tried testing this personally with a Llano based laptop, the frame pacing options are available in CCC however there is a bug at least with the mobile version that prevents the dedicated card from being used so i'm stuck using just the APU graphics with the current beta release, my hope was someone had a desktop variant they could test this with as i dont think a desktop would suffer form the same bug
post #4 of 25
Thread Starter 
No one owns a llano or richland or trinity desktop with dual graphics?
post #5 of 25
Thread Starter 
Sometimes i don't know why i bother, i know someone has this hardware laying around or in use as their daily system. Not a single hardware review site has posted any benchmarks outside of kaveri and the r series gpu's , is AMD only targeting the new stuff? Does anyone else care? Evidently not.
post #6 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviousMachine View Post

No one owns a llano or richland or trinity desktop with dual graphics?

I have a richland 6400k in my HTPC, but could never get the dual graphics going, so I just ran it in discrete with a passive cooled 6670. I will give it another shot since it is still on 13.something and could stand a bench->update->compare. I dont have high hopes though.

Edit: ok, got the 6670 working in dual graphics on the 13.12 WHQL drivers. going to run a bench on valley, 3dmark11, and do a laura croft bench too. I will then install 14.2 and run them all again and report back. 3dmark was painful to watch and tombraider wouldnt behave either. switched to valley and minecraft.

13.12 6670:
Valley: [FPS:27.8] [Score:1162] [Min:8.9] [Max:52.9] <---fairly smooth with some intermittent stutters
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

13.12 Dual Graphics:
Valley: [FPS:28] [Score:1184] [Min:13.9] [Max:54.0]<--detects dual graphics, fairly smooth
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

14.2 6670:
Valley: [FPS:27.9] [Score:1167] [Min:8.0] [Max:54.3] <---fairly smooth, some stuttering
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

14.2 Dual Graphics:
Valley: [FPS:27.9] [Score:1167] [Min:12.2] [Max:54.4] <---detects dual graphics, fairly smooth
minecraft: [FPS:117]<---smooth as silk

Notes: No frame pacing present in 13.12 in CCC. Frame pacing options present in 14.2 in CCC.

Conclusion: I have nowhere near the amount of proper software to test properly, but all are scores seem to be within a margin of error. The rig I tested is just for 720p videos on my projector, and the 11 year old to play minecraft and a couple other pretty non intensive games. Frame pacing is present in 14.2 for me, but again, I think I am not properly set up to test. Sorry I could not be of more assistance.
Edited by inedenimadam - 3/3/14 at 10:40pm
Blue540
(14 items)
 
x99
(18 items)
 
B.M.O.
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
6800k ASUS X99-A EVGA 980 FTW ACX 2.0 EVGA 980 FTW ACX2.0 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance CMK32GX4M4B3200C16W Crucial MX100 WD Blue 1TB EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK 480 PE EK 240 PE EK D5 Vario Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 49KU7500 (curved 4k) Corsair K65 NZXT Hale 90 V2 1000W Thermaltake X9 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitch G100S X-Trac Ripper 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6400k msi A75MA-P33 Sapphire 6670 passive hynix 2 GB dual channel 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD  windows 8.1 e-machine wireless 
PowerCase
king win 600w custom built 
  hide details  
Reply
Blue540
(14 items)
 
x99
(18 items)
 
B.M.O.
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
6800k ASUS X99-A EVGA 980 FTW ACX 2.0 EVGA 980 FTW ACX2.0 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance CMK32GX4M4B3200C16W Crucial MX100 WD Blue 1TB EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK 480 PE EK 240 PE EK D5 Vario Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 49KU7500 (curved 4k) Corsair K65 NZXT Hale 90 V2 1000W Thermaltake X9 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitch G100S X-Trac Ripper 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6400k msi A75MA-P33 Sapphire 6670 passive hynix 2 GB dual channel 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD  windows 8.1 e-machine wireless 
PowerCase
king win 600w custom built 
  hide details  
Reply
post #7 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inedenimadam View Post

I have a richland 6400k in my HTPC, but could never get the dual graphics going, so I just ran it in discrete with a passive cooled 6670. I will give it another shot since it is still on 13.something and could stand a bench->update->compare. I dont have high hopes though.

Edit: ok, got the 6670 working in dual graphics on the 13.12 WHQL drivers. going to run a bench on valley, 3dmark11, and do a laura croft bench too. I will then install 14.2 and run them all again and report back. 3dmark was painful to watch and tombraider wouldnt behave either. switched to valley and minecraft.

13.12 6670:
Valley: [FPS:27.8] [Score:1162] [Min:8.9] [Max:52.9] <---fairly smooth with some intermittent stutters
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

13.12 Dual Graphics:
Valley: [FPS:28] [Score:1184] [Min:13.9] [Max:54.0]<--detects dual graphics, fairly smooth
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

14.2 6670:
Valley: [FPS:27.9] [Score:1167] [Min:8.0] [Max:54.3] <---fairly smooth, some stuttering
minecraft: [FPS:120]<---smooth as silk

14.2 Dual Graphics:
Valley: [FPS:27.9] [Score:1167] [Min:12.2] [Max:54.4] <---detects dual graphics, fairly smooth
minecraft: [FPS:117]<---smooth as silk

Notes: No frame pacing present in 13.12 in CCC. Frame pacing options present in 14.2 in CCC.

Conclusion: I have nowhere near the amount of proper software to test properly, but all are scores seem to be within a margin of error. The rig I tested is just for 720p videos on my projector, and the 11 year old to play minecraft and a couple other pretty non intensive games. Frame pacing is present in 14.2 for me, but again, I think I am not properly set up to test. Sorry I could not be of more assistance.

Awesome man, well at least we know there has been no performance difference between the drivers unfortunately I think the only way to really test frame pacing is with fcat or something to look at frame times and get a more accurate picture of runt & dropped frames. However it doesn't look like the dual graphics is providing any benefit in the benchmarks you provided, that could be that you tested @ 720p which didn't put enough stress on the cards to need dual graphics to kick in but your score should have gone up I'd hope.


Just out of curiosity I ran the same valley benchmark on my pretty heavily overclocked gtx660m and got [FPS:38.4 Score: 1606 Min: 19.3 Max: 74.5], I'm actually fairly surprised dual graphics didnt provide any benefit except it slightly improved your min fps with 14.2 drivers.
Edited by DeviousMachine - 3/4/14 at 6:08am
post #8 of 25
I myself was considering a richland system after I heard the news. What has to be understood is the that AMD only became aware of frame pacing issues around trinity, but by then richland was already designed, so the frame pacing issue arises more from hardware design, and even in the latest R-Series they still haven't fully addressed it, though they are finally starting to compete with Nvidia. Nvidia is way ahead of the game on the issue, but they don't sell at 256 bit card 2GB for 150, no they sell there new GTX 750 1GB 128 bit card for 120. It only uses 60 watts, but will struggle with high texture and 1080p or greater load. As long as you are playing roughly 720p, then the 750 is a better buy especially in hot areas. If however, you intend to use high res texture mods and or play at or above 1080p the R7 265 is a better offering particularly on Intel Systems. The frame pacing issue is more severe on AMD systems unless the game uses mantle.

Note: I would say they have solved frame pacing when mantle is enabled, but this is worthless.
post #9 of 25
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericore View Post

I myself was considering a richland system after I heard the news. What has to be understood is the that AMD only became aware of frame pacing issues around trinity, but by then richland was already designed, so the frame pacing issue arises more from hardware design, and even in the latest R-Series they still haven't fully addressed it, though they are finally starting to compete with Nvidia. Nvidia is way ahead of the game on the issue, but they don't sell at 256 bit card 2GB for 150, no they sell there new GTX 750 1GB 128 bit card for 120. It only uses 60 watts, but will struggle with high texture and 1080p or greater load. As long as you are playing roughly 720p, then the 750 is a better buy especially in hot areas. If however, you intend to use high res texture mods and or play at or above 1080p the R7 265 is a better offering particularly on Intel Systems. The frame pacing issue is more severe on AMD systems unless the game uses mantle.

Note: I would say they have solved frame pacing when mantle is enabled, but this is worthless.

Just had a thought, the 6400k is a dual core chip, it probably doesn't have the power to allow the gpu's to work @ 100% capacity so preference was likely given to the 6670 instead of the APU graphics, that would explain the lack of increase in average & maximum frame rates while still seeing a slight increase in minimum frames. I'm not talking about frame time variance in single gpu configurations my intentions are to see if there has been any increase in real world performance when it comes to AMD dual graphics enabled systems.
post #10 of 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeviousMachine View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericore View Post

I myself was considering a richland system after I heard the news. What has to be understood is the that AMD only became aware of frame pacing issues around trinity, but by then richland was already designed, so the frame pacing issue arises more from hardware design, and even in the latest R-Series they still haven't fully addressed it, though they are finally starting to compete with Nvidia. Nvidia is way ahead of the game on the issue, but they don't sell at 256 bit card 2GB for 150, no they sell there new GTX 750 1GB 128 bit card for 120. It only uses 60 watts, but will struggle with high texture and 1080p or greater load. As long as you are playing roughly 720p, then the 750 is a better buy especially in hot areas. If however, you intend to use high res texture mods and or play at or above 1080p the R7 265 is a better offering particularly on Intel Systems. The frame pacing issue is more severe on AMD systems unless the game uses mantle.

Note: I would say they have solved frame pacing when mantle is enabled, but this is worthless.

Just had a thought, the 6400k is a dual core chip, it probably doesn't have the power to allow the gpu's to work @ 100% capacity so preference was likely given to the 6670 instead of the APU graphics, that would explain the lack of increase in average & maximum frame rates while still seeing a slight increase in minimum frames. I'm not talking about frame time variance in single gpu configurations my intentions are to see if there has been any increase in real world performance when it comes to AMD dual graphics enabled systems.

Yeah, it is a pretty weenie chip in the wide world of microprocessors. Does not help that I am only running 2GB of RAM in that system.
Blue540
(14 items)
 
x99
(18 items)
 
B.M.O.
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
6800k ASUS X99-A EVGA 980 FTW ACX 2.0 EVGA 980 FTW ACX2.0 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance CMK32GX4M4B3200C16W Crucial MX100 WD Blue 1TB EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK 480 PE EK 240 PE EK D5 Vario Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 49KU7500 (curved 4k) Corsair K65 NZXT Hale 90 V2 1000W Thermaltake X9 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitch G100S X-Trac Ripper 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6400k msi A75MA-P33 Sapphire 6670 passive hynix 2 GB dual channel 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD  windows 8.1 e-machine wireless 
PowerCase
king win 600w custom built 
  hide details  
Reply
Blue540
(14 items)
 
x99
(18 items)
 
B.M.O.
(10 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
6800k ASUS X99-A EVGA 980 FTW ACX 2.0 EVGA 980 FTW ACX2.0 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Corsair Vengeance CMK32GX4M4B3200C16W Crucial MX100 WD Blue 1TB EK Supremacy EVO 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
EK 480 PE EK 240 PE EK D5 Vario Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
Samsung 49KU7500 (curved 4k) Corsair K65 NZXT Hale 90 V2 1000W Thermaltake X9 
MouseMouse Pad
Logitch G100S X-Trac Ripper 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
6400k msi A75MA-P33 Sapphire 6670 passive hynix 2 GB dual channel 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
WD  windows 8.1 e-machine wireless 
PowerCase
king win 600w custom built 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Overclock.net › Forums › Graphics Cards › AMD/ATI › ATI Drivers and Overclocking Software › REQUEST: 14.1 frame pacing benchmarks on Llano,Trinity,Richland